Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Arrives. Announces New World Order.
OK, I’m beginning to think maybe the Mayans were right. It appears the world is going to transition into something different in 2012. The photography world at least.
About 5 years ago, I wrote a blog post explaining that quality control problems and horrid repair service meant we would probably stop carrying Sigma products entirely. I spent the next several months manning the ramparts and pouring hot oil on the Sigma Fanboys who assaulted the Lensrentals Walls.
Since then, the most amazing thing happened. They got better. The repair center sprouted an efficient and intuitive web page, real people started answering the phones and knew where your stuff was, repair times went from months to weeks, to often days. Quality control seemed to improve, too, except for the large telephoto zooms. Recently they announced ( making announcements – what a concept, Nikon) quality control improvements, redesign of some problematic lenses (OK, they didn’t use the word problematic lens, that’s me. They just said redesign), and are going to offer the gearheads among us unprecedented ability to fine tune their lenses to our cameras.
So today, we received our first 35mm f/1.4 Sigma lens. The first in their new revamped lineup. (No, you can’t rent it yet. It’s going to have to undergo extensive testing at my house over the long weekend. Maybe next week.) I was eager to see it, hoping it was going to be another step forward and hoping to find some signs of what will be adjustable in these new lenses.
As always, this isn’t a review, it’s my quick first impression after putting the lens through our normal intake tests. I’m not a lens reviewer. Also, as always, my summary comes first, for those of you who have trouble reading more than 150 words without a picture.
This lens kicks butt, takes names, and basically posterizes the manufacturers who make the cameras this lens will fit on.
For those of you who spend too much time post processing, I’m using ‘posterize’ as demonstrated below, not the 8-bit jpg way.

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4

OK, you can get out your crayons and color me Fanboy, but this lens is built solidly. It really feels more like a Zeiss 35mm than a Canon or Nikon. Sigma says there’s a lot of metal in there, and at 1.4 pounds I believe them. On the other hand, that makes it several ounces heavier than either the Canon or Nikon, but about the same amount lighter than the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4.
It feels solid, too. The manual focusing ring is smooth and accurate, although I found it a bit stiff. Not problem stiff, but certainly not move-it-with-a-fingertip. Autofocus speed was reasonably quick, about on a par with the Canon 35mm. More importantly to me, AF accuracy was good, too, even when we darkened the room down to the point where many Sigma lenses start hunting.
Of course, we went over to the Imatest bench next. As most of you know, I hate testing one copy of a lens. The only thing I hate more than that is testing no copies. So I did the one we have today, knowing that there will be another dozen next week and planning just to keep this data to add to that. But like chicken salad on a hot summer day, this data won’t keep.
Of course, I’m going to compare this copy to the average numbers we get for the Canon 35mm f/1.4. I’ll mention that this may be the absolute sharpest of the zillion or so of these lenses Sigma turns out. I’ll get data for another dozen copies next week and we’ll see how it varies. So, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume this is the best copy Sigma will ever make. So to make things fair, I’m going to compare it to both the average for all Canon 35mm f/1.4 lenses we have, but also to the very best out of the 100 copies I’ve tested.
| MTF | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | Canon 35 f/1.4 avg | Canon 35mm f/1.4 best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak MTF 50 | 775 | 650 | 700 |
| Avg MTF 50 | 665 | 555 | 600 |
| Worst Corner MTF 50 | 445 | 325 | 370 |
As you can see, this copy of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 was a bit better in the center and clearly better in the corners than the best copy of the Canon 35mm f/1.4 I’ve ever tested. For the Nikonians amongst us, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 tested on a D3x resolves almost identically to the Canon.
Stopped down to f/2.0 and f/2.8 respectively, the Sigma responds with 900/770/560 and 1000/870/770 mtf50 values (center/average/corner). The Canon ‘best copy’ returned 840/740/520 and 1000/840/740 numbers. It’s probably worth mentioning the Sigma has slightly less distortion at 1%, too.
The Circuit Board
We didn’t do a disassembly today but we did have to take a quick look at the main circuit board, since this will apparently be the first ‘totally programmable’ lens using the upcoming Sigma Optimization Software.
The PCB board in this lens is quite different from anything we’ve seen from Sigma before: cleaner with more chips and few other electronic components. Much different.


Also looking like it will be nice is the 9-bladed aperture ring.

I’ve had about zero chance to actually shoot with it (neither would you if Tyler was standing around screaming about another 50 lenses that need to be tested so they can go on sale for Black Friday) but I’ll fix that this weekend. In the meantime, here’s a shot of the lovely and talented Lensrentals spokesmodel Kenny, at f/1.4, with a bit of 100% crop in the corner. I believe this lens is going to be fun. And at $899 well worth the price of admission.

As to finding anything signifying the new programmability of theses lenses, I didn’t. But if some of the more electronically educated among you want to look up some chip codes, I’ve got a full size image of the PCB you can look at.
Roger Cicala
Lensrentals.com
November 2012
Addendum: A few real world pictures added, along with the note that 1) the lens is not weather sealed and 2) AF was as fast and accurate as the Canon L primes I usually shoot with. I didn’t do side-by-side comparisons, but it was certainly not noticeably different.





The weakness of the lens (every lens has some) does begin to show up in some of these photos: the backround bokeh is not nearly as smooth and buttery as the Nikon or Canon 35 lenses. That’s how it is with lenses – the designer trades off one aspect for another. With this lens we have awesome sharpness at an excellent price, and perhaps at the expense of background blur.
For some photographers the background blur will be a deal breaker. For others the price and sharpness will far outweigh that issue. Nice to have choices, isn’t it?
130 Comments
Trenton ·
How did you like AF speed, and how does it compare to N/C?
Roger Cicala ·
Trenton,
On a 5D II it was very similar in speed and accuracy to the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L. No hunting, even in dimmer light. Don’t have a Nikon mount yet, but historically Sigma’s seem to do better on Nikons.
Rob ·
droolz.
Bob ·
Nice to see Sigma making improvements.
From the 50mm f/1.4 (2008), to the 85mm f/1.4 (2010), and now to the 35mm f/1.4 (2012) it seems like they have continually stepped up their game.
I wonder what they are working on for 2014? 24mm f/1.4?
Ti ·
Are they going to release this in Sony A mount?
Roger Cicala ·
Timon, there website does say A mount will be released, but I don’t know when.
Chris ·
Does this mean the Canon 35mm 1.4 will be less worth soon? 🙂
James Sinks ·
Please, please, please, please do a coma test.
Roger Cicala ·
James, I’ll try to do some star shots this weekend and look for coma
Jon Lopes ·
Does it do the strange (front focus up close and back focus 15feet out and further) thing that the Sigma 50 1.4 is famous for?
Roger Cicala ·
Jon, it focused quite accurately around the shop and in a few shots I took at infinity out front. I didn’t see any sign of that.
Roger
Andreas ·
How is the vignetting compared to the Canikon versions?
Roger Cicala ·
Andreas, I didn’t run tests but it seemed to vignette perhaps just a bit more wide open, but by f/2 I couldn’t see any at all.
Martin Danesh ·
Roger, such articles of yours are really so beneficial… Thank you very much. You really don´t sound biased or anything like that at all and this is something of a high value in today´s world. Thanks to the articles like this (and some unique extras like samples variation of a lens!), one can get a much better picture on which lens to buy and which is better to…. ehm…just borrow :-).
Daemonius ·
Once Sigma made zooms for Leica R and they were sold under Leica name. I assume they must been pretty good. Maybe they will be good again.
Btw. no, these zooms were not that amazing as Leica primes, but neither bad.
L.P.O. ·
Just a friendly hint for the future:
if you want to take a picture where integrated chip laser markings show as clearly as possible, use side light. The markings will almost pop out, whereas if the light is either front light or even worse, reflected back light, they show poorly or not at all.
L.P.O. ·
Oh, and thanks for the article! This Sigma looks very interesting indeed!
Edwin Herdman ·
Roger, to read any chip codes the PCB will need to be lit from lighting somewhat off to the side to catch the labels. Most of them are getting washed out here. I will give it another try in the meantime.
Your comment about Sigma telezooms still having problems piqued my interest, and I just checked out your comment on the 120-300mm OS…I don’t know about the electrical failure rates but you’re definitely right about the quality. If anything I would add that the out of focus highlights, certainly when using a teleconverter (2X EF TC III), will ruin many shots (i.e., shooting across or into the center of a body of water). That said, it’s only about double the price of their 120-400mm OS, and the difference between that turkey and their newer lens is night and day, although those are targeting different segments so I probably shouldn’t read too much into it.
Aaron ·
You say it’s got darn good build quality, nice to hear. How about weather sealing? However great this is, and it looks good on paper, if it doesn’t have weather sealing it probably won’t take off amongst most pro’s. Do you see Sigma and the rest upping the game and going for pro level weather sealing while still giving great quality and at a cheaper price than Canon/Nikon/1st party lenses?
Dawei ·
“out of the 100 copies I’ve tested”
I think it’s safe to say that nobody in their right mind will try and challenge your views haha
mckenzy ·
How does this compare to the 30/1.4?
Dr Croubie ·
Hey Roger,
I’m definitely interested in this lens, as i wasn’t too impressed with the IQ of the L or the price of the Zeiss. So I bought a Samyang/Rokinon instead (for half the price of the Sigma).
I love my Samyang, the only downside is that the global-contrast is rather low at f/1.4, it’s sharp as all hell above f/2.0 though. Any chance of a Sigma vs Samyang test? If the Sigma is as sharp and has better wide-open contrast, then it may replace the Samyang (the sigma has the obvious advantage of AF, but for my shooting that doesn’t mean much).
Shawn ·
What a thorough review! I have the canon 50 1.4 and love it.
Bkpr100 ·
I 2nd doing a Sigma/Rokinon test!
Chub ·
Roger – the brevity of your 150 word summaries are impeccable sir!
Just a thought, but I think that this shows that the Canon lens has held up reasonably well over 14 years. Think about it – a 1998 lens doing only slightly worse than a 2012 lens. I can only imagine where the 35 L II will be on the imatest whenever they decide to release it. This of course going from the trend of revamped 70-200 and 24-70…!
brandon ·
The only problem I see with the canon v2 35mmL is the price. wild guess, $1600?
CarVac ·
Follow up on Dr. Croubie:
I’ve had 3 copies of the Samyang 35/1.4.
I swear that my first copy was literally optical perfection incarnate in a lens; it never sharpened up any more than it was at f/1.4, at least across the APS-C frame. Amazing lens, that one was. No purple fringing, no lateral CA, only a tidbit of longitudinal, no coma, no flare no spherical aberration, no focus shift, no veiling haze wide-open. I couldn’t tell what aperture images were shot at by any way other than depth of field, since it was so consistent.
It didn’t quite have the sparkle of some of my adapted Zeiss glass (“3-d effect”), but man did it have zero flaws.
Note the assertion of merely ‘optical’ perfection: one day it rolled off my desk, fell a foot onto my padded chair, and broke internally; the rear element got decentered.
I paid 200 bucks for another copy since they said that the warranty wouldn’t cover fall damage, and that one was badly decentered. I sent it back, they said that it was fine, but they sent me a third anyway, which is somewhat less decentered but never is quite perfectly sharp.
I have the feeling they slacked on QC after the initial run that went to reviewers and such; shame on them.
foodgrapher ·
thanks for the hands on review.
Was wondering for a while if it’s build quality got better, and this answer it
nepo ·
Here you can see the result of Sigma 35mm f1.4 vs Samyang 35mm f1.4.
nepo ·
Here you can see the result of Sigma 35mm f1.4 vs Samyang 35mm f1.4.
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Samyang-35mm-f142
Silverclump ·
So…you REALLY want me to come running up and kick that football, Lucy?
Don’t forget that Sigma lenses often start life in spec and then gradually go all awry for no other reason than the passage of time, mild fluctuations of the ambient temperature, and the cosmic neutrino rain. Test some now, then test some at the end of a year or two. That will be the true test.
Matt ·
Roger,
How would you say it fairs againg the Zeiss 35mm f/2?
Thanks!
Frank ·
Dear Roger,
How about compatible with Canon 5D II?
Roger Cicala ·
Frank, I was testing it on a 5D II.
Ben ·
RIP Canon 35mm F/1.4
David Bell ·
Wow. This new lens sounds pretty exciting. I was going to be in the ,arket for the Canon 35mm 1.4 soon, but may consider this one instead. Great stuff.
Alex ·
hello Roger,
I have one question about the built quality.
Can you take a picture of the lens’ back or tell us if the tropicaliation is like a Canon L ?
Regards,
Alex
Roger Cicala ·
Alex – no rubber gasket at the lens mount, I’m afraid, so not like the L lenses.
Alex ·
Roger, can you look into CA variation depending on lens sample?
Is it same as resolution, or it is usually more consistent?
Roger Cicala ·
Hi Alex,
We can. I’ll look into adding that in future tests. CA doesn’t correlate with resolution very much. I suspect there is sample to sample variation. I haven’t looked specifically, but a ‘bad’ lens often has a lot of CA, so I suspect it does vary.
Alex ·
And I mean any lens you wish, not this Sigma.
Tof ·
Thanks for the review. Good price but looks heavy. What about weather sealing or water resistance ? Have you got more image samples ?
Seb ·
I’m wondering whether or not rumored Canon 35 1.4 II is going to beat Sigma? Even if so, then still Sigma is much cheaper.
I look forward to test this lens here in Ireland.
ppz ·
see this…
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Samyang-35mm-f142
Ronnie Chan ·
Got to have my hands on this
GregL ·
What’s the bokeh like stopped down? I always avoid fully open due to the harder edges. So f1.6 – f2 would be my usual portrait choice. But bokeh through the aperture range is important also. Sometimes good bokeh at large apertures turns in to nasty bokeh at smaller apertures needed for preserving the facial expression of a background face.
Antonis ·
My one and only gripe about the 35 1.4 Nikkor was its focus speed. Well, that and maybe the fact that it seemed too sterile for me. No interesting flares and such. If this lens focuses faster than the Nikkor counterpart, I’ll take it.
Awaiting for further info on focusing speed…
Giovanni ·
No sense buy the L canon now. Maybe the new 35mm IS if you need that feature.
Adam Malcolm ·
Well that’s all well and good, and it looks like a good lens, especially for the A mount.
But it’s all about HOW it renders things, with 9 blades it’ll probably have nicely smooth Bokeh, but what about colour’s and contrast?
Either way, it’s great to see Sigma upping their game. Sad to see them upping their prices 😉
george pahountis ·
Since I already dropped it ( $$$) for the canon version, i can’t wait for the sigma 24mm 1.4
🙂
Ralf C. Kohlrausch ·
Daemonius said:
Once Sigma made zooms for Leica R and they were sold under Leica name. I assume they must been pretty good. Maybe they will be good again.
Btw. no, these zooms were not that amazing as Leica primes, but neither bad.
Hi,
I still have one of these, and they were average when they were new. They are far below average by todays standards. The German Fotomagazin ran a test of both versions and concluded, that the much more solid and much more expensive Leica tube with it’s supposedly better centering of the lenses did not produce any measurealbe benefit in picture quality.
But Sigma has a long earned reputation for pushing the limits in wide angles (14mm comes to mind) and fast lenses. They offered a 2.8/28-70 years ahead of canikon (and its picture quality was at least one notch below the 3.5-4.5/28-70 that made it to Leica-fame).
But they also skimped on quality of mechanical construction on more than one instant. The beforementioned 2.8/28-70 was partly put together with sticky tape which eventually worked loose, first impairing focus and contrast, later just letting the front part of the lens drop off. BTDT. All in all I’ve had five Sigma 28-70s.
So it remains to be seen how they worked out above average optical quality with a below average sellingprice this time and I’m curiously awaiting Roger’s tear down and comments after the lens is in rental sevice for a couple of months.
And – thanks again for the sound information.
Greets
Ralf C.
Peter ·
Sigma has developed a high price DSLR, they of course need to develop a series of high-performance Sigma lens to match with it. In the future, when her market can support only produce Sigma-mount lens for their DSLR, they will probably not release mount for Canon, Sony, Nikon anymore.
Samuel Hurtado ·
Have you played with the Samyang 35mm f/1.4? That one seem to be amazing too. Lots of very happy users all around the web. Cheaper, but only manual focus.
Samuel Hurtado ·
Sorry, now I see nepo and ppz already posted a link to a comparison. It would seem that the samyang is sharper in the corners, but the sigma is sharper in the center.
Gary ·
Have had much experience with Sigma lenses for Canon and as well as
for Sigma SD 14. They never seem to focus as well with Canon as
Canon lenses do. I have given up on non-Canon lenses because
of that and breakdowns on expensive and extensive trips abroad
(both Tamron lenses) necessitating costly replacement lenses in
Europe.
Hope this 35 mm lens is a new beginning for Sigma.
ryan ·
Sigma is definitely starting to be a viable option for fast lenses to pros.
Sam ·
Fantastic, I may have to pick up one of these for my wedding photography business. 🙂
?????????? ????? Yannis Larios ·
Thank you for this hands-on review!
You now have me longing for this great lens!
Many thanks
touristguy87 ·
…this is what I love about photography: all this high-tech gear and let’s go out and take shots of the woods, bridges over streams, and some flower-bokeh…yeah!
It’s great. It’s sharp. I’m looking at 1/4-vga images on my 15″ monitor. Hooray.
Of all the numbers displayed here what matters most to me? 35mm. $899.
Just how often am I going to want to shoot 35mm/50mm @ F1.4? Seriously?
cheers
touristguy87 ·
ps it does help if the camera can actually AF reliably and well. Beyond that…it’s just so ridiculously expensive for such a limited lens that I can’t even take this seriously. And what do we do when Leica comes out with an AF lens?
James Sinks ·
Roger, thanks for that. A couple distant streetlight shots would be informative too–coma looks very different for stars than it does for (apparently) larger light sources.
Shigeki ·
@touristguy87:
What you got to understand is that these are just tools. Maybe for you this tool, for this cost seems limited and expensive, but I would go ahead and say many wouldn’t. Portrait and wedding photographers with a 35mm and a 50mm could get you through almost 80% of their day, but sports photographers would rather have a 70-200mm or a 300mm.
I think we can all agree that a third party manufacturers producing quality products is a good this for all photographers and videographers no matter what your specialty is. I am hoping this lens pans out to be a great alternative to the Canon 35L, and from initial previews, it seems to be doing just that.
Jim Trapp ·
Question……I am so in the market for a 35mm for this coming wedding season. Will this lens work on a full frame camera? Or more designed for the APS sensor?
Roger Cicala ·
It’s full frame, Jim
K D Sandmann ·
Thanks again for all the articles !
Cody Tolmen ·
Looks amazing! I have one pre-ordered for our Sony a99 so hopefully it will ship soon! It looks like it will be far better than the Sony 35 1.4g… Thanks for your thoughts!
dnguyen ·
I’ll keep my buttery 35L
Bogdan ·
I’m actually in the market for a 35mm large aperture for my Nikons and I was not overly impressed with their offering. This will do nicely I think. Thanks for the quick review.
The 35 is not the only good lens Sigma now makes. Their 85mm 1.4 is also excellent. I had one for quite some time and it consistently impresses me with its performance.
Best regards,
Bogdan
Ray ·
Good to hear that canon might have some competition. I am just anxious to see how much CA comes out of this lens because my 35L is horrible.
nepo ·
In my test,Sigma 35mm f1.4 is wider than the other 35mm f1.4s.Thus Sigma 35 may have a disadvantage in bokeh amount.
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mmmf14-vs-Contax-35mm-f14
Bosse ·
Have you tested the new Canon 35/2 IS USM ? Would be interresting to see how it compares to the new Sigma 🙂
jcr159 ·
LOL, Roger, I see you have a White Elephant! (I was a Cutco sales rep, and that’s what we called the white set with the steak knives…)
: )
Virginia wedding photographer ·
Reading this free blog is expensive.
Thanks for the quick evaluation. I’m ready to dump my 24-70 for this.
Some Guy ·
I have this lens and to me the bokeh is pretty good. I’d prefer sharpness over “buttery” bokeh though. The Sigma 50 1.4 has the “buttery” bokeh but lacks sharpness (try it on a D800).
Bokeh isn’t my primary concern with a wide lens like this though. Portrait lenses like the 85L are where I want smooth bokeh. With 35mm I want sharpness and some subject isolation. That’s what the Sigma gives me.
Of course YMMV.
ppz ·
Nepo: impressive result, as it seem that sigma has better contrast wide open than the contax(using that lens myself and loving the bokeh and rendering of it) Bokeh seem to be the only downside of the sigma.
Joachim ·
Meh.. not convinced. My Pentax 35/2.4 was extremely cheap, and it delivers better than most 35mm’s. In terms of sharpness, low CA and color rendition, there hardly is any better. One can surely get more exotic bokeh with a faster lens 10 times the prize, but I think it seems a bit silly. The point is, I don’t see the point in raving about that hard over this lens; it seems good, you get what you pay for if your not a complete fool etc.
Amin ·
Bokeh doesn’t look so harsh to me. Hard to tell without side by side bokeh comparisons with other known lenses.
Carl ·
What I’d like to know is, how does the “bokeh fringing” or longitudinal CA, compare with the other lenses? Will be interesting if you test for that. I could see some of the rough bokeh in the pictures even before reading the part where you mention it. That said, there’s something to be said for sharpness, too.
Incidentally, has anyone figured out a quick way to “fix” bokeh fringing, with whatever editing software you prefer?
As great as the 85L was when I rented it, I still recall some bokeh fringing, even with it (at least below f/2). My 135L has near zero lateral and longitudinal CA wide open, is extremely sharp to the corners (at least on my crop camera), and has smoother, more buttery bokeh than any lens I have tried, or seen images online (including the awesome 200 f/2L, which excelled in other areas). It’s a shame the wider focal length, fast lenses can’t be produced to achieve a similar result. I guess that’s physics for ya.
The only fast Sigma lens I have tried, is the 30mm f/1.4 crop/only lens. Would be nice if they ever decide to update it. It had all sorts of apparent waviness to the field curvature at longer focus distances (or at least it seemed like it). Also had some rough bokeh, but at times could look smooth.
The thing I liked about it most though, was the color. It probably epitomized the “warm” color that so many criticize Sigma for. I loved it, and still don’t see a downside to it. The entire color spectrum is still there, it just looked better, with less “false blue” hues…in my opinion. Sure you can tweak color all you like in the computer, but it helps if it’s there to begin with…then tweak that…haha.
GirlFromPoland ·
Thank’s for first review about Sigma Lens 35 / f/ 1.4
Amin ·
Carl, Sigma says the lens was designed to minimize axial CA: http://sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_35_14/index.html
From the looks of these samples, I’d say they have succeeded:
http://magazine.kakaku.com/mag/camera/id=996/
http://lcap.tistory.com/archive/20121117
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/15/first-batch-of-sigma-35mm-f1-4-sample-photos-released-shows-impressive-iq/
I’m no Sigma fanboy, but this looks like a winner in every way. In fact, this lens has me thinking about adding a 35mm format DSLR to my rotation again after going without one for the past couple years.
Tom ·
Just curious why no one on the entire “World Wide Web” except you has been able to post a review? I’ve never seen such a mysterious major product release.
nepo ·
I also compared Sigma to Canon.In my opinion,Sigma35’s bokeh looks better than that of Canon.
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L
NancyP ·
How is this lens’ coma? I am considering either the bargain Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 35mm f/1.4 manual focus lens or this new Sigma autofocus 35mm f/1.4 lens for astrophotography with my Canon. Autofocus is not necessary or possible for astrophotography, but coma (and to a lesser degree, chromatic aberration) can be a real problem in this type of photography. The bonus for autofocus is to be able to use this as a fast standard lens on Canon crop camera.
NancyP ·
Thank you Roger for your review, and thanks in advance for any info you have when you get and test more of these lenses.
Thank you Nepo for your additional info on this lens.
Amin ·
“I also compared Sigma to Canon.In my opinion,Sigma35?s bokeh looks better than that of Canon.
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L”
Thanks for the link. I agree with you – your controlled side-by-side testing shows nicer bokeh for the Sigma. The Sigma also looks sharper with less axial CA and less light falloff.
Carl ·
Amin, thanks for the links!
Ok so Nepo seems to disagree with Roger’s initial findings regarding the bokeh smoothness. Will be interesting to see who else tests the lens, as well as to hear Roger’s further thoughts. To me, just looking at Roger’s test shots, I can see some roughness. And of course bokeh “smoothness” is probably not always directly related to longitudinal (or “axial”) CA. It sure would be nice if there was a quick way to get rid of the colored fringing in the bokeh, though. The only fast lens I have right now is a 50mm f/1.4, and it exhibits some. It’s just so sharp though, I am still extremely happy with it.
NancyP, do you do any astrophotography piggy-backed on a telescope, or do you just use a tripod for relatively short exposure “still” shots…or do you just do longer exposure “star trail” photography? I would think you wouldn’t need or want a “fast” lens to do star trail photography…and usually you want a much wider angle than 35mm for that as well.
One of my Milky Way shots got published in the March 2012 issue of Outdoor Photographer. I would have rather used a faster lens (like this Sigma) on a full frame camera, of course. But the shot was taken over 2 years ago.
More and more people are doing great astro photography of all types, so it’s kind of difficult to get your work to stand out. Kind of like what’s going on with photography in general.
Joe ·
NEPO: great comparasoin, could you do just bokeh comparasion i diferent scenes between canon, sigma and contax? thanks a lot
Ottawa Wedding Photographer ·
With the sharpness being better than the Nikon and Canon lenses, at least at 1.4 and 2.0, I expect that this lens will really please a lot of landscape shooters (and of course gearheads). As a portrait photographer and food photographer, I’m inclined to lean towards having the best bokeh that I can afford in my lenses, though 35mm isn’t an ideal focal length for shooting food. I’d be really interested to see a bokeh comparison of this lens versus the Canon and Nikon (and Sony) 35mm 1.4 primes with a person acting as the subject and some trees about 20 feet behind him or her. In fact, side by side bokeh comparisons are something that I think the internet could use more of in general. Perhaps I should start a blog. And sink all my profits into renting lenses for the purpose of these tests 😉
dkov70 ·
Is it really optically any better for FF Nikon compared to Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G AF-S? Anyway, it`s heavier, larger and costlier…Is it worth it?
Jorge ·
Well, it is true that a macro look shows that the new 35 Sigma’s bokeh is better, but seeing the full photo looks a little bit rough. As a Nikonian I would like to see a side by side comparison with the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G.
kelux ·
Hi.
A norwegian photography site translated your blog about Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and then managed to undermine your finding by writing the following sentence:
“Roger Cicala and Lensrentals earn obviously money on renting the lenses, so one should take his words with a grain of salt.” (This is translated from norwegian).
I don’t think it’s particularly nice to re-write/translate another man’s work and then say it’s not trustworthy because he makes money renting out the product.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.akam.no%2Fartikler%2Fsigma-imponerer-bloggerne%2F114851
Roger Cicala ·
Kelux,
Thank you for pointing that out – I totally agree.
But it’s mostly an example of people speaking without thinking, is so often the case. Common sense, if that author had any, would point out that we make just as much money renting Canon or Nikon 35mm lenses as we will on Sigmas. And let’s see (as he said) we had 1 copy of the Sigma, 96 copies of the Canon, 48 of the Nikon. So, of course, I would want to make sure that one Sigma lens rented.
If they’d researched a little more they’d have also noticed we had 8 copies of the Canon 35mm f/1.4 lens for sale when I wrote that article. I guess he thought it would be great business to write an article that nuked the used price for those lenses, too.
Soooo, I wonder which of us has less credibility?
Anyway, thank you for letting me rant a bit. I enjoyed it 🙂
NancyP ·
Carl, I am new to astrophotography, and I do wide-field shots on a tripod. I have Canon 15-85mm f.3.5 – 5.6 and Sigma 8-16 f/4.5 to 5.6. I expect that I can do some multiples and stack the photos taken with the above lenses – I just downloaded a program to do so, and am hoping for a clear cold night in the next few days to gather the multiples. Aside from this use, I have no fast lens, and I would like a fast “normal” lens for my APS-C that could be used on a future FF camera body.
Chris Jankowski ·
To Ottawa Wedding Photographer:
I’d guess that if you would like to see what is the best possible bokeh achievable then you need to rent one lens only – the legendary Minolta/Sony 135mm F/2.8 [T4.5] STF – smooth trans focus lens. You would need to use a Sony Alpha full frame camera body with the lens – A900 or A99 to get the best result. It is equivalent to 207 mm on Sony half frame APS-c format, so much less practicable for portrait or food photography.
Here are reviews of the lens:
http://www.kurtmunger.com/sony_135mm_f_2_8__t4_5__stfid268.html
http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/737-sony135f28ff
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/390-sony_135_28
http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lenses/SAL-135F28/Sony-AF-135-STF-SAL-135F28_review.asp
http://www.magnuswedberg.com/index.php?doc=STF-review
The ultimate cream machine, as a reviewer remarked.
Unfortunately Roger will not be able to help you with the rental. I believe that LensRentals do not stock the lens.
Joachim / CH ·
I’m not the one withe the Pentax. Got my Sigma today, or rather this evening – very promising, I’m happy you brought my attention to it, Roger. Hopefully this weekend will not only be new snow, so I can try more things with it.
Joachim / CH ·
Me again. Results in aspects of sharpness and contrast are fabulous, I’m very impressed.
I was just wondering: When I compare it to other lenses, capable of being set to 35mm (28-300, 24-85) and close to 35 (40, 50, 24) the Sigma ist just 1/2 clickstop brighter. D800 was set to manual mode on a tripod and the results of the other lenses are pretty close to each other. I need to check again with constant light and a grayscale and an additional other body.
That’s a bit weird, I hope (if I can prove my impression), Sigma is able to reprogram the electronics? You didn’t compare the results of your copies to original lenses, Roger?
Joe ·
My new Sigma 35/1.4 for Canon is optically excellent, but has auto-focus consistency problems, particularly obvious indoors at wide apertures. AF works and confirms focus (one shot, center point) but the image sometimes isn’t focused as advertised. It seems to be a problem with focus precision (repeatability) rather than consistent front or back focus. On the same Canon 5Dmk2 camera, I do not have this problem with Canon lenses (50/1.4, 85/1.8, etc).
May be worth investigating…
Joachim / CH ·
Hi Joe, I could provoke the same effect with my D800. But would not blame the Sigma for it. It is a wide angle lens and therefore the exact focus doesn’t jump in as easy in as the longer focus length use to do. I just checked the same “difficult to focus” area with the Nikkor 24/1.4 and had just the same problems. It were leaves of a plant, dark green and sort of dark magenta. No high contrast is a challenge for each phase detect AF.
Switch to live view when you’re aware of critical focus situations. Before, switch as well from single AF to continuous and listen to the work of the focus motor, mine wasn’t quite and kept moving. That’s always a sign of uncertain AF.
Joe ·
Live View contrast detection AF is slow but works perfectly with this lens. Normal phase detection AF is fast but inconsistent with this Sigma lens. I have not had this problem with Canon lenses, including wide ones like 35/2, 24/2.8, and 17-40/4L.
It seems that my 5Dmk2 camera tells the lens (once?) where to focus, but the Sigma sometimes misses the mark in normal phase detection AF mode. In slow Live View contrast detection AF mode, the camera keeps on moving the lens for a full second until perfect focus is achieved.
Joachim / CH ·
Well, without a direct comparison to an original 35/1.4 I won’t dare to make a judgement. After all, at 50(!)% of the price of the Nikkor and with that sharpness I would accept some flaws. Still, I don’t consider f/2, 2.8, 4 as “fast lenses”, but that’s my own restriction.
Joe ·
No judgement needed. I’m merely reporting my observations, in hope that this will help motivate further investigation, and perhaps lead to some technically plausible explanation, preferably with a lens firmware fixes.
BTW, I’ve had mis-focused shots with my Sigma 35/1.4 at f/5.0 (high contrast urban scene in good light), so this isn’t an optical issue such as lens speed or f-stop. This is an electromechanical focusing consistency issue — the next shot of the same scene, using the same focusing technique, came out sharp.
In good light, my Sigma mis-focuses perhaps 3% of the time, but clearly stopping down is helping during daytime, because the fraction of mis-focused shots in low light at f/1.4 or f/2.0 is significantly higher (in my experience).
I’ve been using a variety of Canon AF lenses (fast and slow, primes and zooms, from ultra wide to super telephoto, film and digital) and several EF-mount camera bodies since the original EOS 650 over 25 years ago, and I have not seen this frequency of AF problems. Then again, my Sigma 35/1.4 is optically a delight, vastly superior to my old Canon 35/2, and I agree with Roger’s assessment of its optical quality.
Evil Ted ·
I have a copy of the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 for Canon mount and I can also confirm the auto focus problem 🙁
It’s a nice lens and really sharp, but pretty useless if you are shooting stationary objects indoors in low light and it results in soft or out of focus shots.
I’m getting way higher than 3% misses too, more like 25%.
In this respect it reminds me of the Canon 50mm F/1.2L – great when it nails focus, but the problem is it misses too much.
Shawn C. ·
I too am having problems with the Sigma 35mm @ F/1.4 with focusing. It’s very inconsistent and tends to front focus most of the time. I had to set it to +17 on my 5D Mark III and this is after days of testing. When it does miss it’s still front focusing. I’m wondering if I just got a bad copy of this lens? It does miss 100% of the time with NO AF adjustment. Not having this problem with my other 4 Canon lenses, including the 135mm F/2.
Evan ·
Hi Roger
I have the Sigma 35 1.4 here and I’m having a heck of a time micro adjusting it. The focus seems inconstant. I’m using it with the 5DIII. What are your thoughts on AF accuracy with the Sigma? Your articles about Canon’s improved AF accuracy were eye opening but I don’t… Wait a minute, I just saw the preceding comments. I guess I’m not alone. I think consistant accurate AF trumps lens sharpness. That’s why I’m throwing in the towel with my Zeiss 35mm f/2. It’s an amazing lens but my eyes are getting old.
Thanks
Evan
Thomas Pindelski ·
I rented a brand new one (local place in SF, sorry Roger!) and while the lens has the best resolution and color rendering I have seen, it’s useless based on my example. It simply cannot focus consistently on my D3x, known to be dead accurate every time with my 85/1.8 at full aperture. I would estimate the hit rate at no better than 50%. Identical exposures, seconds apart, vary between back focus, front focus and dead on. This looks like a design issue with the stepper motor and/or circuitry. The miss rate is so great that the lens simply cannot be trusted in any light – I get the same results in daylight as in poor light at any distance and it will miss even at f/4 by a significant amount on occasion.
I thought mine might be an isolated example but the other recent comments along like lines suggest this is a broader issue.
Roger, how do you test these? Are you using LiveView on your test bench or are you testing without a camera body? I only use regular AF (I’m a street snapper, so LiveView is not useful). Some AF tests from you might be instructive.
Roger Cicala ·
Thomas, all of our published resolution testing is done in live-view on bodies. We don’t do any critical autofocus testing other than just shooting around the lab, which means plenty of controlled light, etc.
Thomas Pindelski ·
Thank you, Roger. It’s so great optically that I will wait for Sigma to fix the AF issues before buying one.
If it helps I have made an ACR lens correction profile (RAW and DNG only) which can be downloaded here:
http://pindelski.org/Photography/download-lens-profiles/
I guess it will take Adobe a while to make one.
This works with Lightroom and Photoshop and is especially useful at f/1.4 and f/2 where the Sigma vignettes heavily.
(My site is non-commercial so this is not an attempt to garner clicks) .
Roger Cicala ·
Thank you Thomas! Most useful. I’m going to go grab it myself.
Andy Holdsworth ·
Hi Roger,
I have just received the 35mm and am finding after calibration it works well for subjects 4-8 feet away but the further the subject is thereafter the more it seems back focuses, so I was wondering if you could tell me if this is normal behaviour for this lens. I’m using the same aperture for the testing.
thanks,
Andy.
Roger Cicala ·
Andy, I can’t say it’s normal, but I’ve heard of some people with similar issues. Sigma can adjust it for you or you can exchange it. In a month or so, when we have the adjustment tool Sigma is promising, you should be able to adjust it yourself but that doesn’t help with your copy right now.
Thomas Pindelski ·
The Beta release of Lightroom 4.4 now includes an Adobe profile for the Sigma 35/1.4. I have checked it against mine – referenced in my comment above, and it performs identically.
Bob B. ·
Ok…this is a great lens. I took delivery on one yesterday and will be breaking it in this weekend.
Build is great, fit and finish superb, appears to be VERY sharp, lens hood included and it snaps on REALLY TIGHT…no slop. NICE. Sigma…you almost got everything perfect…except the case. What is with the over-sized toaster cozy???? I put that thing right back in the box and it will never see the light of day again. A nice, simple sexy neoprene pouch would have complemented this piece of Art perfectly…and cost less to manufacture. I know I am quibbling…but that case is truly hysterical!…easily fixed with 3rd party item. Clearly the team that designed that lens had nothing to do with the case. LOL!
Peter ·
I first handled one of these lenses this week and was seriously impressed by its apparent build quality. It is heavily engineered and exudes the look and feeling of being a pro lens. Previously I regarded myself as a kind of Nikon snob and thought of this company being “Stigma” not “Sigma”. Handling the lens almost changed my mind.
I rushed home to “Google” the lens to find out what people are saying about it as I now invariably do before investing money in new kit. Having done that, I am distressed to hear so many reports (not only on this forum)of focusing irregularities. And I have to say that until this issue is fixed, buying this lens must be off my agenda.
Apart from a DSLR I also shoot a Leica M8 which of course uses a rangefinder to focus. Focus calibration can be problematic with that camera / lens combination and I have experienced this and had to spend time money and effort to get the camera calibrated properly and make sure specific lenses are working properly in the field. I can only say it is no fun. It is extraordinarily frustrating to have to cope with missing shots randomly because kit is not quite up to the task.
Sad, so near and yet so far.
JP ·
I had bought a Sigma 35mm for my Canon 6D and yes, it front focused. Sent it back to Sigma, who said that they had recalibrated the lens, but that it probably was my camera’s fault. This is ridiculous, for I never had any focus problem with any of my 10 other (L and non-L) lenses. The recalibrated version still front focused as much as before. So I went for a refund; it may be a beautiful lens but if it does not focus properly, it is useless for making pictures with it. I have now bought the Canon 35mm 2.0 IS instead, and I am actually happy that I did. It is much sharper in the corners, lighter, smaller, and the IS is remarkably practical. If I need shallow DOF I use a 85 or 135 mm.
Vladimir Kadinski ·
No problems at all with the autofocus of this lens on my D600. It’s spot on every time, even in very low light. Detail wide open is amazing. This lens is a stellar performer. The Nikon and Canon alternatives can’t touch it. Sharper, better contrast and totally usable center wide open. I returned the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.4G for this lens. I think that says a lot.
MA ·
Am I the only one who cannot get this lens to focus on the outer points of the 6D? I have two copies and none works. Center is spot on, outer points are off by the equivalent of +15 MFA. Unsable at f1.4.
Roger you shoot 6D and this lens, any problem with outer points? Thanks
Roger Cicala ·
Mario,
I haven’t had any problems, and we haven’t had reported problems with Canon cameras. There are issues with outer focus points on the D800 Nikons, but haven’t seen it on Canon.
When you take images using live view focusing are the edges and corners soft? It could be a decentered lens, that can affect off-center focus accuracy.
Roger
MA ·
Thanks for replying Roger, if I use live view or center point the corners are fine. Did a quick test for decentering (on a chart) when I got it and it seems also fine. The point is that I have two lenses with same issue…(serial number is only 5 units apart though). In the meanwhile I sent some pics to Sigma and they agree there is frontfocus to be fixed on the laterals. They asked Sigma in Japan if they have a software solution for this. Will let you know when I hear from them. My 6D works just fine with other lenses.
papa2jaja ·
I’ve had two copies of this lens and have done fairly extensive testing, using exclusively the center AF point on my D800.
I set both copies up using the USB dock, and found that they appear to have both front/back focus issues plus focussing reliability issues.
I’m a hobbyist and not a pro, so it may be all my fault, but for example, if I set my second copy’s focus up to be on spot at around 1.2m, I get a severe backfocus at 6m, which does not exist if I leave the lens to have a bit of a front focus at 1.2m.
After approx. 100 test shots, taken in daylight, of the same 6 objects at identical distances, it appears that with everything beyond around 8 meters, sometimes the focus is spot on, sometimes it is off, although the light hasn’t changed.
I’ve read of similar probs from Canon and Sony users as well. Looking at pics on the Internet, I sometimes think that they are not as sharp as this lens can be, or that the focus seems to be in a location where I don’t think the photographer actually put it.
Which makes me wonder, is this a general issue with some newer cameras? Or is it an issue of this lens in general?
Has anyone done test shots like me, of the same 6 or 7 objects at always the same distances and seen that some of them were either sometimes sharp and sometimes not (like me), or always sharp?
I love the images this lens produces when it focusses properly. Is there a chance that with a third copy I might have no probs, or is the probability for this low?
Elle Elskamp ·
I had a very inconsistent focus problem with a new lens on both my Canon 7D and 550D.
Brought it back to the shop, who returned it to Sigma.
I am still waiting for an answer 1 1/2 week now, but I have a strange feeling about it.
Not happy at all.
3bc ·
I don’t know if I am lucky or if this is a case of people that have problems being the ones to speak up (which is somewhat natural I believe). My copy is brilliant. Right out of the box, first copy. The only time I miss focus is in incredibly low light on my 6D where other bodies would give up looking anyhow, and that is more of a stress test than practical use. The only negative thing about this lens is it makes every other lens I own seem totally inadequate. Sharpness, color rendition, bokeh (which on my copy is creamy and really messy), “it” factor, this lens blows my others away. My other lenses are not the most top notch but generally we’ll respected: 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and 24-105mm f4 (all canon). I just spent 5 days in Europe doing a lot of shooting and of the 1000 images I took maybe 100 weren’t with the sigma, and those would be shots I needed all the length I could get on and went to the 24-105.
My typical Lightroom PP involves bumping clarity and saturation up to around 10-13, vibrance to around 13-15 and sharpness to around 45-55 depending on the particular scene on pretty much every shot just to get dullness that RAW files/my kit imparts on my images. I have not had to add any clarity, vibrance or sharpness to any shots I’ve taken with this lens. Can’t recommend highly enough.
Ansel Adams ·
I had several bad focus problem during a wedding few days ago. It gives bad focus at 5.6 too in day light on a 5d mark II using the central focus point. The problem is not the front-back focus i tried to correct with a +15 M/A but the inconsistence you get 90% of the time. Yes it’s good at f1.4 very little chromatic aberrations but from 5.6 it’s not an impressive lens at all, a “cheaper” canon 85 1.8 is as sharp or maybe sharper.
Reading other comments i am starting to think reviews on internet are all fake or maybe i have only bad luck.
Daniel Hodac ·
I did some extensive testings on 2 copies. Around 300-400 test shots at all distances. Even shooting same subject at the same distance would yield focus inconsistent, shot A would be front focus while shot B was back focus. It drove me crazy.
The lenses seem to “auto” focus on their own. After several attempts and adjustments from Sigma USB Dock to get to +9/+9/+10/+10 on one lens, other lens was at +10/+10/+15/+15. With the above adjustments, both of the lenses produced tack sharp images if they didn’t shift focus on their own. Unfortunately, there was only 20%-25% of the chance that the lenses would focus on the focus point.
My works can’t accept this kind of inconsistency. It may work perfectly on other cameras but definitely not on Nikon D810.
I love Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 (APS-C) while hate Sigma 35mm f1.4 at the same level.
I returned both copies. Others may have good luck, however, I didn’t have that luck.
Eric Bartlett ·
Not happy with this lens at all. Atanything below f2.8 it’s useless in studio or in natural light for portraits when shot 8 feet or so away from subject. Eyes are rarely in focus and I have tried even fast shutter speeds and it doesn’t help. I wish I had never bought it. Yes, it maybe sharp close up but within a 35mm close up for portraits you have to be careful with distortion. A BIG disappointment and I don’t get it when it comes to good reviews. My Nikon 85mm f1.4 and 70-200 f2.8 knocks the socks off this lens. You get what you pay for I guess. IO will be sticking to brand from now on despite reviews on Sigma.
Eric Bartlett ·
Found out my Sigma f1.4 35mm lens was way off on calibration which is something I overlooked. Added a +20 adjustment using SpyderLenscal tool and voila! Tested this afternoon in an outdoor model shoot and it is working like a charm. Maybe others in this forum who find this same problem need to also calibrate the lens. Apparently, calibration is often overlooked by photographers.
Joe ·
@ Roger Cicala:
Read your test with interest, since I myself had severe problems with the new ART-line of Sigma and wanted to jump in with some observations, thoughts and remarks.
– I got the 18-35mm/1.8 ART: had it shipped to Sigma service 4 (!) times, once even including my Nikon (that previously was sensor- and autofocus-tested by Nikon’s service to be on the sure side): even though they claimed to have tested and adjusted the lens, autofocus on anything more distant than 2 meters was still WAY off all the time. Even after the calibration, they have claimed to have done ON MY CAMERA! So blurry, that you even could see that right on the camera’s LCD-display without zooming into the photo. Sigma even sent me a new lens in exchange the fourth time: marginally better, but still way off. Cross-testing with other cameras from my dealer: it WAS the lens, not the camera. After some web research, this seems to be a quite common problem: either you are lucky and got a good copy, or you’ve just lost…
– the adjustment tool (USB dock), that I have, did not help: yes, you can adjust the lens. But: even if you got infinity-focus adjusted (next adjustment point is 50cm), you still will be presented with 2 problems: objects between 2m up to around 30m will still not be “focus-eable”. So anything between the two adjustment-points will stay problematic. And: you still will have problems with focus inconsistency: maybe, one time focus is spot on, but the next 10 shots will be non-useable. Tested it in a real-world situation at a well-lit dance-contest: with single spot focus, NOT ONE of 500 pictures was sharp (and I am not talking about motion blur, but severe mis-focusing)!
– You said, you test with Live-view focus. IMHO, this will give you an idea, what a lens might be capable of, but not, how the lens behaves in real-world situations. The big problem, the ART-series seems to have is with “Phase-Autofocus” – which I think is the autofocus setting used in 95% of all cases. I need fast and reliable autofocus, and I can’t wait, until live-view autofocus has done its task. Would anyone doing street photography, documentary style or just normal everyday “shoot what I find interesting” use live-view autofocus – I would say “no”, they all use “normal” phase-autofocus. From lenses in that price-category, I expect reliability. Not a single one of my Nikon lenses, and not my Sigma 8-16mm and 80-400mm have the slightest problem with phase autofocus. They are spot on. Only the 18-35mm ART (and, as I read but cannot prove myself, other lenses from the ART series as well). May I suggest, you include “normal” autofocus in your testing?
Let me add a final remark: this post is not about bashing Sigma. I just wanted to exchange some thoughts and observations. Besides guys like you testing equipment, user-experiences are the only way for us end-users to get an idea about manufacturer’s quality control and possible problems of a lens. Thanks for providing that opportunity to express our observations in your blog.
Sven ·
Also having extremely inconsistent focus. After a Camera internal adjustment of +13 it is as good as it gets. This means it nails focus about 30% of the time. The other 70% it either front- or backfocusses randomly. Sometimes very strong. I testet it with the classic “focus test”, obviously with the camera on a tripod and a remote shutter release. What a piece of garbage, I should not have believed in the hyped reviews of this lens.
Same happened to me with the Tamron 24-70 2.8. On this lens the aperture is not adjusted correctly. 3.2 is in reality 2.8, 3.6 is about 3.2 and 4 is about 3.2 and so on… Additionally the image stabilisation now broke after about 500 shots.
From now on only nikon lenses.
weslie joe ·
JOIN ILLUMINATI TODAY FOR FREE AND BECOME RICH/PROTECTED AND FAMOUS.
Weslie Joe is my name, i quickly want to let the entire world know how i became a millionaire with the help of Illuminati. I was born into a very poor family that we had to eat just once per day at a time i did street hawking just to survive it continued like that until i grew up to 20 years old. it continued and then i started selling drugs it happened that i delivered a parcel to a very wealthy man who uses Royce Rolls i was so surprised when he said i should give him a call later in the evening that he have a thing to discuss with me. i did called him and he invited me to his office at Adams Street in Texas when i went to his office in the evening he asked me if i really want to enjoy this life i said yes then he said i should go home and meet him up in 5 days time we took some drinks together before i left. when i got home i was restless because of the question he asked me if ‘i want to enjoy this life’ i went back to him on the 5ft day as agreed then he said i shouldn’t tell anyone that he wants me to join them in the Illuminati so that i can become very rich and wealthy. i was initially afraid to join because i thought it was for the Elites but he made me understand that even the poor can join and i was very amazed. so i was introduced, initiated online and i was given a benefit funds of $2,000,000.00 a car of my choice and also a house in Boston. Brothers and sisters, today i am made, today i am a millionaire and today i have my protection. please application form is open now and i want all of you to take this medium to become a member and become a millionaire and enjoy your life the way you want it. To become a member, you can email the initiation center directly on illuminatikingdom06666@gmail.com you can also call/text the initiation center on +1(917) 791-0923 if you uses WhatsApp, you can WhatsApp the initiation center on +1(617) 663-8926. PLEASE NOTE THAT IT IS TOTALLY FREE OF CHARGE TO JOIN AS NO ONE WILL ASK YOU FOR A PENNY TO BECOME A MEMBER. You are all welcomed.
Signed:
Brother Weslie Joe
Membership number IGF/66689162
Illuminati.
MR THOMAS ·
WE ARE ALWAYS READY TO HELP NEW MEMBERS TO BECOME RICH AND FAMOUS.! WhatsApp +19592210429 or Email illuminati666benefits@gmail.com
The illuminati brotherhood offers you Riches, Powers and Fame. You can achieve all your dreams by becoming a member today. new members receive the sum of $15,000,000 USD into your bank account instantly Note: The illuminati do not accept human sacrifices and no sharing of human bloods, if you are really interested let us know we have great benefits for new members
BENEFITS GIVEN TO NEW MEMBERS AFTER PRAYERS FROM THE LORD MASTER
*A Cash Reward Of $500,000.00 USD.
*A New CAR Valued At $100,000.00 USD.
*A Dream House Bought In The Country Of Your Choice.
*Monthly Payment Of $200,000USD Into Your Bank Account Every Month As A Member etc If You Are Really Interested Contact Us Today we are always ready to help you whatsapp +19592210429 or Email illuminati666benefits@gmail.com.
Henry Ancy ·
HAIL LIGHT!
Do you want to Be WEALTHY AND POWERFUL IN LIFE? Do you want to get Rich in a little time?Do you want the world to recognize you and listen to you when you speak? do you want to be in power and control? if yes, Be a part of the world most Capable brotherhood of Wealth and Power - The Illuminati Freemason-
If You Have Sickness or Affliction Of Any Kind Or Any Level, no matter how severe it is, Contact Us today for your liberation to health And Wholeness
ELEVATE YOURSELF FROM POVERTY AND FREE YOURSELF FROM THE BONDAGE OF SICKNESS WITH SPIRITUAL ATTACKS
Do not hesitate to contact us If We'll Be Of Help To YOU in any ways or at any situation you find yourself.
Here's our contact info
EMAIL/hangout: illuminatiinitiationtemplewa@gmail.com.
DIRECT SMS/Calls To Masonic Registry +1(760)8922577
WHATSAPP +2347052719658.
WARNING: only those who are interested to become a member of the church of Satan are allow to visit office or send a mail to the email address below. Do not contact if you are not interested and once you contact there is no going back. so think before contacting. BEWARE!!!
BE SURE THAT YOUR HEART DESIRES WILL COME THROUGH BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR, making your dreams and wish come to REALITY.
HAIL LIGHT!//